[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Fwd: Dinogeorge Digest special edition (long)

Second try...
--- Begin Message ---
I was timed out of the dinosaur list on Sunday the 9th because I had sent
eight messages to it on Saturday, as Mickey Rowe gleefully informed me. Thus
I'm sending this digest special edition, which contains all my posts from the
8th and 9th, including digest #15, just in case anyone wants them. If I'm
still timed out today (the 10th) and this item doesn't make it through the
Great Timing Barrier, then you'll get a forwarded copy of this post tomorrow
(the 11th).

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-10 13:16:20 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     MICHAELS@preit.com
CC:     Dinogeorge

In a message dated 98-08-10 12:36:35 EDT, MICHAELS@preit.com writes:

<< I'm sorry George, I didn't mean to set you off by implying I think the
Impact Scenario is a bunch of hogwash. The whole problem is that our evidence
just isn't as good as your example! I really wish it was! If we had a couple
of dinosaurs with hunks of space material imbedded in their skulls, it would
be a better analogy. We just have missing animals and a big hole in the
ground. No direct evidence linking the two events, as of yet. >>

We have a hole in the ground, we have lots of missing animals, and, most
important, we have extremely good information on the timing of these two
events. As far as we can tell, within the bounds of error, they occur
simultaneously. Also, most importantly, we have >no evidence at all< that
>any< of the missing species were going to become >extinct< from some other
cause or causes even if there had been no asteroid impact. Decline--if there
even was such--is not the same as extinction. "Decline" just means,
essentially, that we have recovered fewer fossils from later deposits than
from earlier deposits. The reasons for this can range anywhere from
collection bias to true decline to change of habitat to all three together.

<< For example, there has been a few old folks this summer that have died
from the heat. I heard on the news an elderly lady was found in her house
dead, with all the windows shut. It was a zillion degrees in her house. At
first, it was assumed this was another heat-related death. However, after her
body was examined, they determined that it was a murder case (I think she had
been smothered). Imagine if the police hadn't continued with the
investigation! Even when the results seem obvious, it isn't foolish to test
it out! >>

I agree 100%. The asteroid impact hypothesis has been tested and investigated
a zillion ways and has come up smelling like roses every time. In light of
all this, the shoe is now on the other foot. It is time for those who think
the impact is not responsible for the extinction to prove >their< case. I
know they're working on it, but so far what I've seen is pretty weak.

Besides, Nature isn't trying to conceal a crime from anyone.

<< Oh, good grief. I hear more   baked "after impact" scenarios than I care
to imagine. Few of those are really  testable, and are based on pure
assumptions. How many of our ideas about dinos untestable? Most of them?
Should we just give up all research then?>>

Not at all. We should look hard for ways to test the hypotheses that we come
up with, but we should admit that we probably aren't going to find many
testable hypotheses. The hardest thing for me personally to do in
dinosaurology right now is to devise sure-fire ways to test my BCF hypothesis
in the absence a fossil record of pre-archaeopterygid birds. I can come up
with lots of hand-waving, but little of substance. The one reason I adhere to
BCF strongly right now is that, despite its weaknesses, it's light-years
stronger than any competing hypotheses in terms of fitting the known
evidence, the physics of flight, and so forth.
<<I could care less one way or another who is right or wrong in this case. I
just think it is wrong to close our minds to other ideas-this includes the
impact hypothesis, too! For all we know, everything could have been dead a
week before the dumb rock hit, or the dang thing did french-fry everything.
We may dig up something tomorrow that will give us the answers. the problem
is, will we see it? Or will we be too caught up in egos and clinging on to
our cherished ideas to notice? >>

I would say that, >for all we know<, everything could >not< have been dead a
week before the dumb rock hit; that would be like saying everyone died of
heart failure just before the bullets hit, in my gunman analogy.
<< The people who dare question the sacred Alvarez theory are not a bunch of
morons. That was my whole point in the book review. Somehow that got lost
along the way.>>

Don't overlook the fact that the book was written by a geologist--the
director of the LA County Museum--who, I would imagine, would be on the
anti-impactor side if that position were still tenable.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_ Ad Infintium
Date:   98-08-10 09:28:29 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jbois@umd5.umd.edu, dlessin@accesschicago.net

a message dated 98-08-10 09:05:13 EDT, jbois@umd5.umd.edu writes:

<< Recapitulating, the real challenge to this idea is to explain why
 placentals, birds, frogs, crocs, turtles, and lizards survived an event
 that killed _all_ large and small (remembering that there must have been
 millions of small juveniles present at the time) non-avian dinosaurs
 whether they were in hills, deserts, valleys, river terraces, forests,
 plains, at all locations around the globe. >>

There were almost certainly no small non-avian dinosaurs left at the end of
the Cretaceous. By then they had all evolved into birds. The Cretaceous is by
far the best sampled of the three Mesozoic periods, yet small, bird-size
(total length about 50 cm) non-avian dinosaurs are rare to non-existent. I
claim they had been slowly replaced in their niches by placental mammals,
whose fossils become increasingly abundant in the later stages of the
Cretaceous. Small non-avian dinosaurs, thus, weren't at the K-T boundary,
where they might have had a good chance of surviving to repopulate the planet
with a new radiation of larger dinosaurs following the extinction. Instead,
the planet was repopulated by larger mammals and, to a lesser extent, larger

Subj:   Re: impact
Date:   98-08-09 23:12:44 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     dollan@cyberport.net, Kimba4evr

In a message dated 98-08-09 21:46:55 EDT, dollan@cyberport.net writes:

<< Being an amateur myself, I'm also a little fuzzy on this one.  Would
 massive fires leave evidence in the fossil record?  In the end, I
 suppose it comes down to whether or not a fire damaged skeleton is in
 the right place at the right time for fossilization. >>

There is a soot layer associated with the K-T boundary clay (the iridium-rich
boundary clay) at many sites. This is thought by some to be the result of the
global firestorms immediately following the impact.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_ Ad Infintium
Date:   98-08-09 20:26:41 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     102354.2222@compuserve.com

In a message dated 98-08-09 19:54:07 EDT, 102354.2222@compuserve.com writes:

<< More than that, they (and virtually every other organism*)
 apparently went unscathed through at least one major bolide impact, at the
 Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary (crater in the subsurface of South Africa which
 is estimated at being almost double the size of Chixulub)**.  So what was
 peculiar about the K/T impact if it was the sole cause of the K/T
 extinction? >>

For one thing, the J-C impact seems to have left no iridium-enriched boundary
clay layer. Perhaps we might better ask, What was peculiar about the J-C
impact that it didn't bring about more widespread extinctions than it did? As
I said before, these are details. Perhaps each giant impact is peculiar or
distinctive in some way. Who knows? Not enough data.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to The Cretacous_
Date:   98-08-09 18:42:29 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     dlessin@accesschicago.net

In a message dated 98-08-09 18:17:10 EDT, dlessin@accesschicago.net writes:

<< It also not sufficient to say that extinction was caused by bolide impact
 (even if that was the ultimate causation). What extinction biology should
 describe  is the how and whys of impact upon different ecosystems.- i.e. If
 bolide impact caused a mass extinction, how and why did impact effect  a
 temperate alpine biome vs. a wetland biome in the southeastern hemisphere >>

I should note in this context that >at no time< have I ever discussed the
>detailed mechanisms< by which the asteroid impact led to the extinctions.
These were almost certainly varied and some were likely indirect, especially
at points 10,000 km or more away from the impact site, where the direct
effects of the blast would not have been as deadly. Was it superheated
atmosphere? Global ejecta blanket? Nuclear winter following the impact?
Global fires? Ecosystem breakdowns following destruction of most plant life?
Release of atmospheric carbon dioxide after vaporization of the limestone
deposits that the impactor struck? All of the above and more besides? Not
enough data yet to test such hypotheses. You simply had to be there.

A complete theory of the effects of asteroid impact on the world's ecosystems
is not necessary before one can agree that the impact was the primary cause
of the K-T boundary mass extinction. Just as, for example, you don't need to
know the exact size and shape of the earth to understand that it is round and
not flat.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-09 12:03:05 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     102354.2222@compuserve.com
CC:     dinosaur@usc.edu

In a message dated 98-08-09 09:42:42 EDT, 102354.2222@compuserve.com writes:

<< The point, George, is that coincedence of time doth not necessarily
 a direct correlation make. >>

The point is that coincidence of time quite frequently "doth" a direct
correlation make! As, for example, in the case of the K-T extinction.

Anyway, there seems to be no point arguing this issue any further. My
position is now quite well known. Perhaps it is good that there are still a
few diehard paleontologists who are hurling themselves at the asteroid impact
theory. Who knows? They may just find something that demolishes it (I
>seriously< doubt this). If they ever do, I'll be happy to stand in line to
congratulate them and embrace the new order.

Meanwhile, it almost seems as if a few paleontologists have become chagrined
that the mystery of what killed the dinosaurs--certainly the most widely
known paleontological puzzle to the general public--has turned out to have
such a mundane and prosaic, almost too good to be true, solution. And it
doesn't help that the mystery was solved by physicists rather than

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-09 11:51:28 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge


In a message dated 98-08-09 09:46:29 EDT, you write: 

<< Can you give me a brief explanation of the Signor-Lipps effect. >>

I can try--

It was first pointed out in 1982 by Philip W. Signor and Jere Lipps:

Signor, P. W. & Lipps, J., 1982. "Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns,
and catastrophes in the fossil record," Geological Society of America Special
Paper 190: 291-296.

Basically, it is a statistical effect that appears in the sampling of rare
items, such as dinosaur bones, in a restricted area, such as right at the K-T

Let's say for a moment that the asteroid impact did kill off the dinosaurs
abruptly. What would the fossil record of dinosaurs look like in the deposits
above and below the boundary marker? Well, above the marker, there would be
no dinosaurs, of course. Below the marker? Well, unless you're very, very
lucky and have found the remains of dinosaurs that were actually killed by
the impact itself, you'll find that there is a gap between the last dinosaur
that was fossilized and the marker. The rarer the dinosaur fossils, the
bigger the gap you can expect.

If, say, a particular dinosaur species gets fossilized in a form that is
later discovered by paleontologists on the average of once every hundred
thousand years, and the asteroid impact occurred sometime after that last
known dinosaur, there could be a gap representing as much as a hundred
thousand years between that fossil and the extinction event marker. This
would make it look as if those dinosaurs became extinct as much as a hundred
thousand years before the impact, simply because there are no more fossils of
those dinosaurs within that interval. Even though those dinosaurs may have
lived happily right up to the day of reckoning.

I guess you can see how this purely statistical effect can create illusions
such as "stepwise extinctions" in dinosaur populations. The way to work
around it is to try to find fossils as close to the boundary as possible, so
as to shrink the gap out of existence. This is not easy to do.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-09 05:55:04 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jbois@umd5.umd.edu
CC:     MICHAELS@preit.com, dinosaur@usc.edu, Dinogeorge

In a message dated 98-08-09 02:25:04 EDT, jbois@umd5.umd.edu writes:

<< On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
 > On the other hand, it could also be true that some paleontologists are
 > resistant to having a physicist step in and tell them the way things
 > at the K-T boundary, so they reach for ever more far-fetched alternatives
 > the impact, when the correct explanation has been sitting under their
 > for the past two decades. This blade cuts both ways, I'm afraid, and
 > bring us closer to the truth.
 In my experience paleontologists are very wary of accepting explanations.
This is reasonable since it is hard to test historical hypotheses.  Most seem
content to speak the truth, which is in this case: "we may never know".>>

HOOBOY what a load this posting is! Where oh where shall I begin??

In reply to the above--paleontologists "may never know" about the cause of
the K-T extinction, but pretty much the rest of the scientific world does! I
will surely agree that much of the time, "may never know" is indeed the case
in matters paleontological. Such as whether or not dinosaurs were endotherms.
But with the K-T event--given that there's a >known< asteroid impact, crater
and all, associated >exactly< with a mass extinction, so that the >actual
physical residue< of the asteroid is preserved and >cuts across the faunal
K-T boundary<, and that lots of species below the residue do >not< appear
above it--well, frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist, if you know
what I mean.

<< > What's a "pseudo-extinction"? Are all the organisms dead, or are they
 When one species evolves into another, the ancestor species ceases to
 exist.  This is a pseudo extinction.  >>

This isn't any kind of extinction, unless ordinary death is to be classed as
extinction; this is >anagenetic evolution<. "Pseudo extinction" indeed.

<< For example, according to David Archibald: "During the Latest Cretaceous
 and the Paleocene in Western North America, disappearance rates for
 mammalian genera track appearance rates, both reaching their peak in the
 early Paleocene following the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs.  Some of
 the disappearances during this time were pseudo extinctions that resulted
 when ancestral species disappeared during speciation.">>

I'd like to see Dave Archibald (or anyone else) demonstrate that any
so-called pseudo extinctions as described herein actually took place. He'll
have every cladist down his throat in no time. Where's Wagner when you need
<< In this way a creative bout of adaptive radiation can look like a mass
extinction! >>

Balderdash. And I suppose black is just a rather dark shade of white, eh?
<< > I suggest we begin at the other end: (1) There was a gigantic asteroid
 > exactly at the end of the Cretaceous; of this we are now certain. (2) A
 > of Cretaceous organisms vanished at exactly the same time, or very shortly
 > after, all around the world. Duh!!
But I've already said that Alvarez is talking about "stepped extinctions".  A
host of organisms did _not_ vanish at exactly the same time.  By starting at
the other end you've got ot backwards.  You have an "event" and you are
trying to shoe-horn all the data into an instant of time.  The best evidence
we have suggests this is not what happened. Merely repeating it over and
again doesn't make it true.   >>

There is presently >no way< to distinguish between Signor-Lipps effect and
so-called "stepped extinction." And, how convenient that all these "stepped"
extinctions come to a climax >at exactly the time when the asteroid hits<.
Smells too fishy to me.

The most detailed surveys of the late Maastrichtian find evidence of
dinosaurs up to within about 60 cm of the K-T boundary, and there are plenty
of reworked dinosaur fossils in early Paleocene deposits. That's close enough
to the K-T boundary for me.

<< > Most modern bird orders evolved during the early Cenozoic, quite likely
 > adaptive radiations following the K-T event from a few randomly surviving
 > neornithan species. 
 This is unsupported by anything but negative evidence.  It's  simply too
 early to tell if whether molecular clock data is right when it says
 most orders evolved _before_ the K/T!  if birds exhibited mass-survival
 over the K/T, wouldn't this falsify the bolide-as-sufficient idea?  >>

Even if lots of birds survived the asteroid impact, which I doubt, it
wouldn't matter at all. So the impact missed the birds; it got the dinosaurs
and a bunch of other animals and plants.
<< > Enantiornithan birds didn't make it across the K-T
 > boundary, but fossils of these are still so abysmally rare that we really
 > can't conclude that they were wiped out by the impact.
 But even Feduccia recognizes a gradual decline in enantiornithan birds
 over the end of the Cretaceous.>>

Maybe there was, and maybe there wasn't. Enantiornithans are generally so
rare as fossils that there don't even have to be any in the Maastrichtian at
all to suspect a Signor-Lipps effect. The important thing is not that there
was a decline; the important thing is that there aren't any enantiornithans
known above the K-T boundary, and there are enantiornithans known from below
the K-T boundary. So they're certainly >candidates< for extinction as a
result of the impact.
<< > The major issue of the K-T extinction is not the cause (asteroid impact)
 > whether there >was< a mass extinction (there was); the major issues are
 > organisms survived it, and why, and what happened to their descendands
 > afterward.
 Unless you can explain survival as well as extinction, you don't have an
 explanation for extinction!  The bolide-as-sufficient idea does not
 explain either the timing or the pattern of extinction and survival.  As
 such, it was an event, that's it. >>

Then it's the greatest coincidence of all time! Just as all those dinosaurs
and other Mesozoic creatures went mass-extinct, for a thousand different
reasons, bam!, the asteroid hit. An asteroid fully capable of wreaking
tremendous havoc on the entire planet's biosphere.

What you're trying to tell me goes something like this: A gunman opens fire
at a group of ten bystanders. Say three persons survive. Nobody sees the
actual shooting, and the three survivors are badly wounded and too incoherent
to serve as witnesses. The other seven bystanders have their bodies riddled
with bullets. Now, you're telling me that >because there were three
survivors<, the gunman cannot have killed >anyone<: that because the bullets
were ineffective against three survivors,  the bullets couldn't have created
the seven corpses, either. Rather, all those dead bystanders coincidentally
died of heart failure, or malaria, or a particularly virulent strain of
smallpox that they all just caught from one another, or something else as yet
unknown, just before the bullets hit their bodies. Well, this is certainly
light-years beyond parsimony!

As a corollary of my gunman and bystanders example, you >don't have to
explain survival<. You are only obliged to explain extinction. If you feel
like searching for why one or another group managed to survive the impact, be
my guest, but you'll just end up going around in circles, waving your hands
at one untestable hypothesis after another.

Subj:   Re: CLIMBING
Date:   98-08-09 02:11:08 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     sarima@ix.netcom.com, dinosaur@usc.edu

In a message dated 98-08-09 00:17:07 EDT, sarima@ix.netcom.com writes:

<< In the case of hominids, it was due to the overly long arms, derived from
 their unusual use in locomotion. >>

Perhaps some day we'll find the remains of a brachiating small theropod.
That'll be most interesting for BCF--long arms are one big step closer to
wings than short arms.

Subj:   Dinogeorge Digest #15
Date:   98-08-09 01:50:18 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     dinosaur@usc.edu
CC:     Dinogeorge

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-08 22:29:04 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jwoolf@erinet.com
CC:     jbois@umd5.umd.edu, MICHAELS@preit.com

In a message dated 98-08-08 17:49:51 EDT, jwoolf@erinet.com writes:

<< The Law of Parsimony says that the simplest explanation which covers
 _all_ the facts is preferable over more complicated explanations.  The
 impact scenario is not parsimonious as long as it fails to explain all
 the facts.  >>

The impact scenario is by far the most parsimonious explanation of the K-T
extinction. One impact, wipes out almost every significant life form. Those
that are left were lucky; there is no pattern to the survivors, except that
they tended to be small rather than large. These are all the facts that
require explaining.

Subj:   Re: _Night Comes to the Cretaceous_
Date:   98-08-08 22:24:57 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jwoolf@erinet.com
CC:     jbois@umd5.umd.edu, MICHAELS@preit.com

In a message dated 98-08-08 17:49:51 EDT, jwoolf@erinet.com writes:

<< Illogical.  The extinction was selective: all nonavian dinosaurs, but no
 birds; mammals hurt but not wiped out; cold-water organisms less
 affected than tropical ones; marine reptiles more heavily hit than fish;
 etc.  A good shorthand way of describing the extinction on land is that
 pure ectotherms (amphibs and lower reptiles) and pure endotherms (birds
 and mammals) survived, and everything with a metabolism in between was
 wiped out.  The fact that the extinction was selective indicates there
 is a *reason* why some groups survived and others did not.  I want to
 know what that reason was.  The asteroid impact scenario doesn't say. 
 Therefore, I find the impact scenario an inadequate solution to the
 problem. >>

This is all completely irrelevant to the question of what killed the
dinosaurs, as I've pointed out already. Also, you're quite wrong that pure
ectotherms and pure endotherms survived, and "everything in between" was
wiped out. Most tetrapod species did >not< make it across the K-T boundary.
You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of tetrapod
species (herps, mammals, birds) that can be reliably identified on both sides
of the K-T boundary. For that matter, how about providing a list of these; it
should be really short?

Remember, for a species to survive, it is only necessary that a small
population of individuals somewhere remain alive through the crisis.
Ninety-nine percent of the population can be eradicated, and the remaining
one percent will refound the species. This is luck, plain and simple.

Date:   98-08-08 22:01:54 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     m_troutman@hotmail.com

In a message dated 98-08-08 18:39:28 EDT, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< Also, before I go on, I must give a real positive endorsement of 
 _Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods_.  Some of the best articles 
 in there are Witmer's and L. Martin's (excellent article on the anatomy 
 of _Archaeopteryx_ where he argues convincingly that the squamosal was 
 absent in the creature).  The whole book is good. >>

Yes, this is a truly excellent book: It's one of a few dozen books I didn't
leave behind in Buffalo when I moved back to San Diego in 1997. I refer to it
quite frequently.

Date:   98-08-08 21:59:47 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     m_troutman@hotmail.com

In a message dated 98-08-08 18:39:28 EDT, m_troutman@hotmail.com writes:

<< So in response to somebody's claim that Olshevsky came up with the idea 
 of secondary flightless or arboreal theropods, let me say that it was 
 Abel who first developed the idea.  Anyway, George deserves credit for 
 coming up with the "complete picture". >>

Actually, I hadn't heard of Abel's papers until I read Witmer's; I arrived at
BCF quite independently of Abel, although about 70 years later. I was
absolutely delighted to discover that a "real" paleontologist had come up
with this concept all the way back in 1911, but was disappointed to learn
that he had, for some reason, given up on the idea by the late 1920s. I think
it may have had something to do with Heilmann's _Origin of Birds_, which
discredited the idea that birds descended from dinosaurs (largely because
theropods were not known to have had wishbones then) and placed their
ancestry among the non-dinosaurian thecodontians. Unfortunately, Heilmann was
wrong, but he sent paleontologists on a wild goose chase for the next 50
years, from which some even now have not yet recovered. The Abel papers are
quite difficult to obtain photocopies of; I still have only an excerpt from
the 1911 paper in my files. Perhaps the British Museum can provide

Subj:   Dinosaur Genera List corrections #97
Date:   98-08-09 00:03:01 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     dinosaur@usc.edu
CC:     jmcvey@cts.com, Gary Kerr, dpeters@stlnet.com
CC:     Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu
CC:     lucas@darwin.nmmnh-abq.mus.nm.us, Raptor RKC
CC:     Dan_Chure@nps.gov, RalphM@qm.qld.gov.au
CC:     jmorris@direct.ca, bervoets@nrc.nl
CC:     dtanke@dns.magtech.ab.ca, Tyrant rex
CC:     brett-surman.michael@nmnh.si.edu
CC:     PCurrie@mcd.gov.ab.ca
CC:     KELLNER@cristal.cprm.gov.br, Dinogeorge
CC:     lblosser@eznets.canton.oh.us, Brittpaleo
CC:     tlford@ix.netcom.com, dale_russell@ncsu.edu
CC:     bh480@scn.org, ssampson@acl.nyit.edu
CC:     vrtpaleo@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
CC:     jpoling@dinosauria.com, danchure@easilink.com
CC:     bardet@mnhn.fr, chiappe@amnh.org
CC:     wbrink@pim.unizh.ch, franczak@ntplx.net
CC:     saur@midway.uchicago.edu, DinoDonL, DD4SKYART
CC:     tom@airgun.com, dn102@esc.cam.ac.uk
CC:     bcurtice@ic.sunysb.edu, peter.rowe@uniontrib.com
CC:     bagpipe@uwyo.edu, dis@gj.net
CC:     jpowell@tucbbs.com.ar, Gilles.Cuny@Bristol.ac.uk
CC:     jacobs@post.cis.smu.edu, witmerl@ohiou.edu
CC:     robert_sullivan_at_phmc@phmc.state.pa.us
CC:     luisrey@ndirect.co.uk
CC:     gmaier@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
CC:     chargot@det-freepress.com
CC:     pcurrie@dns.magtech.ab.ca
CC:     spamer@say.acnatsci.org, chuck_crumly@acad.com
CC:     ammjh@gemini.oscs.montana.edu, PreTimes
CC:     kpadian@socrates.berkeley.edu
CC:     W.T.Blows@city.ac.uk, vonrex@gte.net
CC:     dino@unpata.edu.ar, PXL03450@niftyserve.or.jp
CC:     veselinka.stanisavac@siol.net
CC:     renesto@imiucca.csi.unimi.it
CC:     tanimo28@e-net.or.jp, dinosaur@dinosaur.org
CC:     DinoGazette@Juno.Com, MR_CYNIC@webtv.net
CC:     jocalvo@uncoma.edu.ar, gcat@goodnet.com
CC:     paleosdnhm@earthlink.net
CC:     Richard.hescox@sierra.com, DinoBonz2
CC:     bardet@cimrs1.mnhn.fr, paswamp@mailbox.uq.edu.au

I received the following interesting note from Ben Creisler earlier today:

"I just checked the Nomenclator Zoologicus and the name Augustia is
preoccupied by Augustia Zariquiey, 1927 (Coleoptera), that is, an insect

Indeed, another beetle--like Protognathus. Accordingly, the name of the genus
is revised to:

Augustia Bonaparte, 1998/Zariquiey, 1927

(and it loses its boldface type, too). Jose Bonaparte is being notified of
this problem, and I presume he will take care of it when his paper appears in
the symposium proceedings.

I now have the complete citations to the papers in DGL corrctions #95:

Tomida, Y., Rich, T. H. & Vickers-Rich, P., eds., 1998. _Second Symposium
Gondwana Dinosaurs, 12-13 July 1998, Abstracts with Program_, National
Science Museum, Tokyo: 24 pp.

Bonaparte, J., 1998. "An armoured sauropod from the Aptian of northern
Patagonia, Argentina," in Tomida, Rich & Vickers-Rich, eds., 1998: 10.

Bonaparte, J. & Ferigolo, J., 1998. "A new and primitive saurischian
dinosaur, _Guaibasaurus dandelariai_ [sic], gen. et sp. nov., from the Late
Triassic Caturrita Formation of southern Brazil," in Tomida, Rich &
Vickers-Rich, eds., 1998: 11.

--- End Message ---